Forum:User Block Policy Re-Write
Introduction Since of recent events involving the confusion of block periods it has come to myself's and AoS's attention that a strict criteria is needed to set a range of guidelines to make sure blocks are a sufficient and fair time. I have also decided to incorporate in this change, the decision of whether the punishments of users are to be called "Blocks" or "Bans". I feel this just makes it simpler when talking about blocks/bans to other users including the offending user. Thanks, 00:35, March 26, 2011 (UTC) Suggested Changes The following changes will effect the following page(s): *RuneScape Clans Wiki:User block policy Block or Ban? Please sign your name under either the block or ban heading (which ever you would prefer to call the punishment of users disrupting the wiki) with any other comments you have. Block 01:08, March 26, 2011 (UTC) When set for a definite period. 02:26, March 26, 2011 (UTC) * 16:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC) * 00:55, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Ban When set for an indefinite period. 02:26, March 26, 2011 (UTC) * 16:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC) * 00:55, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Block Policy Re-Write Please feel free to fill in the table below as you see fit with suggestions. I (MinigameGod) will be filling the whole thing out over time. Please see RuneScape Clans Wiki:User block policy for the current policy, and specifically this section as it is the main section that will be changed. Further Comments or Suggestions I don't see much use for a 2-hour block, as there is rarely a sysop present when things such as vandalism occur, and the only reason to use such a block would be to allow discussion of a possible longer block or to permit the reversion of vandalism without further disruption. Concerning vandalism and personal attacks (flaming), I find this wiki to be especially at-risk for these problems due to personal feelings and "patriotism", and seemingly innate comments can spawn a flame war. I propose that a harder stance be taken against personal attacks and vandalism, especially repeat offenders. Furthermore, acknowledging that this wiki has had past problems with abuse of sysop privileges, I propose that any sysop who is determined to have abused their power by their peers have said powers revoked by a bureaucrat or Wikia staff member. Since I believe that this recent argument was partially caused by misunderstandings of a well-meaning user of the template, pages with this tag should be protected from anonymous editors, as proposed by The Excel, leaving the talk page unprotected if possible to allow for discussion and evidence. If it is not possible to leave the talk page unprotected, then the protecting sysop should leave a link to their talk page on either the clan talk page or the template, or both, to aid in the discussion of the validity of information on the page. Please discuss proposed changes with possible revisions below. 02:26, March 26, 2011 (UTC) :* I like the idea of protecting disputed clan pages. 00:58, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :* I agree with Stone's suggestions. 02:06, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :* Heck I'll agree with something that was partialy my idea :P 16:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC) User Protection Suggestion I think we should include a section that protects the user being attacked for example. User A harasses user B, user B cusses out user A. User B shouldn't get a huge punishment because it was provoked. 16:44, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :* Sounds so good so long as User B still gets a punishment, albeit more lenient than User A. 17:02, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :** Punishment Severity should depend on how badly they were provoked as well. 17:13, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :*** Sounds good. 18:22, March 27, 2011 (UTC) :*Though, for example, User B after being provoked uses swearing and more abusive language then User A originally... Should we still take into consideration that it was a provoked attack or are they as bad as one another? For what was said originally, I think both users would/should be blocked immediately (if it was obviously provoked then a lesser block for User B) after the first warning and if it continues the block periods would/should be determined by the table above. 00:53, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :*How I see that, is user B wouldn't have cussed at all if user A didn't exsiste. Why punish him severly if he's most likely not goint to do it again. 00:59, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :**We should still block both users, but take into consideration their possible block history and the severity of the provocation and response. 02:02, March 28, 2011 (UTC) :*I completely agree, they should both be punished to some degree but "B" should receive far less than "A". This is something I feel has been an issue for some time and I agree with you that it needs changed. 04:21, March 28, 2011 (UTC) Final Proposal I almost forgot all about this! I will leave the final proposal here for a day before I officially change the policy. Here is what I propose after the discussions held above: ---- The exclusion of a user from the wiki for a defined definite period of time shall be called a block. If the user is excluded from the wiki indefinitely or forever it will be called a ban. :* This means we will need a template for a user's talk page to discuss the banning including reasons why and their rights towards appealing the ban. (Similar to the already existent Blocked template.) The Table above will be the new, enforced guide in blocking/banning users. If not followed correctly warnings and even punishments are able to be given to the user(s) involved. Following past events, if the template causes problems that involves blocking, the page involved is to be protected. The page in question is to be protected as soon as a block is handed out. All the blocks of any type of attack should be handled according to the table above. If provoked attacks occur, all involved users are susceptible to blocks, though, the provoker should receive a more harsh punishment. Any and all types of previous punishments should be considered at the time of an admin blocking a user. ---- 03:22, April 26, 2011 (UTC) Further Comments on Final Proposal Support-''' 20:30, April 26, 2011 (UTC) 'Support -' Go for it! 21:00, April 26, 2011 (UTC) '''Support 20:38, April 26, 2011 (UTC) U prolly want this not that it matters it's here. Support 02:44, April 29, 2011 (UTC)